Natalie Whipple’s post “What To Expect When You’re Submitting” has some great information on the submissions process — what it’s like, how to deal with it, when to call it quits… There isn’t nearly as much information out there on the submissions process as on the querying process, so it’s great to see that being remedied.

There have been some posts around on jealousy and how to deal with it. My favourite of these is Gayle Forman’s take, “That Green-Eyed Fucker”. I’m all for honesty and acknowledging one’s emotions, so her post really rang true to me.

Agent Mary Kole wrote a fantastic post on physical clichés in your writing. I have to admit: I’m utterly guilty of this.

This Scottish anti-rape PSA is amazing.

Issue four of The Red Penny Papers is out!

Today’s the last day to get 10% off at The Book Depository — both the US and UK sites. Use the May11 coupon. (I recommend checking both sites if there’s a book you want to buy; there are often differences in price, and shipping is free anyway.)

First up: I guest blogged over at Juliette Wade’s blog the other day with a post about bicycles in the Netherlands.

(Spoiler: We have lots of ‘em.)

Now time to share the love!

My critique partner and friend Jodi Meadows is offering a 100-page line edit on the Help Write Now blog, with the proceeds going to charities supporting the victims of last week’s tornadoes in the south. If you have the money and need a thorough set of eyes? Bid.

My other critique partner and friend also has an auction up: This time it’s Beth Revis, with a signed hardcover copy of her book Across the Universe. The higher the bid, the more snazzy things you get — and better yet, every single bid gets book swag.

Not a critique partner, but still recommended: Janice Hardy’s The Healing Wars trilogy is up for auction as well. (She’s the author of an amazingly helpful blog I recommended a while ago.)

Here’s an interesting article about the representation (or lack thereof) of girls and women in children’s books from 1900-2000. The results will… probably not surprise you.

Author/agent Mandy Hubbard breaks down how much money you’ll actually see when you sell a book — even in one of those delicious “major deals.”

Yesterday’s discussion made me ponder some other things: who gets to decide what is or isn’t hurtful or offensive?

My thoughts on this are excruciatingly simple. Members of the affected group get to decide that. If you’re outside that group, you don’t get to dictate what those people should and should not be feeling. That doesn’t mean your opinion is worth zilch, or that you can never say anything about a group you don’t belong to, and it certainly means that you can’t write about them. You might even do it awesomely, in which case, rock on with your bad self.

All it means is that, in the event of a disagreement, I’m likely to attach more value to the opinion of members within the affected group. After all, they have experiences with the issue that you don’t. If I had a math problem, I’d sooner listen to a mathematician than a high schooler; if I wanted help writing a male character, I’d ask a male friend instead of a female friend. To me, that seems entirely reasonable.

However, a lot of the time, these disagreements are between members of the group themselves. Different personalities, different experiences, and intersectionality all come into play, shedding light on the issue from different angles. That’s when you can have a discussion you can actually get something out of.

To harken this back to yesterday’s topic: if a rape survivor complains about being triggered or offended by a book, I think that’s important and something that needs to be respected. Though I disagree with the removal of the books from Bitch Media’s list for the reasons outlined yesterday, I was rather disturbed by how some blogs talked about the people who complained or those who removed the books.

Most of the time, when books are censored or challenged, the people complaining aren’t members of the affected group. From what I understand, this time, they are. Bitch Media tried to respect that. It’s not at all out of bounds for a feminist site to want to avoid recommending books they consider un-feminist. It’s not censorship. It’s saying, “Reader input has made me reconsider my opinion of this book, and now I no longer feel comfortable recommending it as explicitly feminist.” Wanting to fix your perceived mistakes is commendable.

As I mentioned yesterday, I just don’t think they went about it the right way. For one, they should have read the books before creating the list. For another, opinions on how feminist these books are or aren’t differ enough that the books aren’t out of place on the list. From what I’ve read, this is not remotely a clear-cut issue. Many people from the affected groups got something worthwhile out of these books, so I think the list’s creators were very short-sighted in removing them the way they did. Clearly, this was not a case of “rape survivors find these books offensive/hurtful/triggering”; some rape survivors did, and some found them empowering and insightful. A trigger label would have warned those who preferred to avoid this and still left the recommendation there for the many other people who might have gotten something useful out of it.

That said? The list was nothing more than the opinion of a few people online. They merely reconsidered their opinion on whether or not to recommend a book — there’s no censorship or banning involved anywhere. They might not have responded ideally, and we should certainly discuss the situation and the attitudes that came into play, but I don’t think they deserve anywhere near the amount of scorn they’ve received.

I suspect I’m very likely to have missed some important point, here, so feel free to comment and tell me I’m wrong.

I think most people reading this blog will have heard about the Bitch Media debacle by now. In short, they made a list of recommended books for feminist readers, some people complained about some of the books, and they replaced those books with others. Many angry blog posts ensued.

I found myself commenting on some friends’ blogs with these thoughts, and figured they might be better here.

I believe that acknowledging and respecting triggers is important. I believe that safe spaces are important, as well. The real world is ugly, yes, but if you know that topic X will trigger you, you’re damn well justified in avoiding it. Your mental well-being takes priority. Always.

That said, I also believe that you should be able to discuss and write about all kinds of sensitive topics in an honest, unflinching way. You can’t tiptoe or avoid around delicate topics, nor should you have to. They need to be discussed and dissected at length or we’ll make no progress at all.

However, safe spaces and frank discussion can work together. Like S. Jae-Jones said, that’s why trigger warnings exist; a simple parenthetical note would’ve sufficed. While I applaud their good intentions, there’s no sense in singling out some potential triggers while leaving others. People are triggered by different things in different ways. Either make it a completely safe list — in which case it would also be a very, very short list* — or stick with what you had and give people the information they need to choose for themselves..

Reasonable? Yay? Nay? I welcome discussion!

* Nothing wrong with having a list of ‘safe’ books. It’d just attract a different audience.

Another contest to win Across the Universe, this time on Beth Revis’s own blog!

I absolutely adored Jennifer Walkup’s write-up of Show vs. Tell; it’s one of the best I’ve seen, with wonderful examples and explanations of why said examples do and don’t work. Even if you know all about showing versus telling, it’s great to have the occasional reminder.

Adam Heine discusses The Problem With The Gun On The Mantle; how to avoid predictability without making something come out of left field completely?

Putting on my feminist hat for a few moments… kattahj on LJ talks about owning books by male authors vs. female authors, and how the results are often surprising.

Have you seen the Female Character Flowchart? As much as I love the idea of it, I’m not fond of the execution. A few wonderful rebuttals can be found here, here and here. Like elle_white over at LJ says: “Can we please stop putting down female characters in the name of feminism?”

The comments are also very much worth reading.

I always enjoy the Feminists With Disabilities/Forward blog; their latest post, however, I enjoyed from a writing standpoint, as well. In discussing a letter sent to the Ask Amy column, s.e. smith says the following:

Many people seem to believe that there is a specific ‘right’ way to study and that if you don’t study that way, you’re doing it wrong. Staying up all night to study is wrong, even if your sleep schedule is actually better suited to studying at night. Studying with music on is wrong. Moving while studying is wrong. There’s a whole long list of things touted as ‘good study habits,’ like ‘don’t leave your work until the end of the weekend.’

To me, what makes a good study habit is what works for a given student.

I almost feel lazy by relating this to writing. It’s just too easy. Ha! Anyway, to avoid repeating my rant from a few months ago, I’ll just say: CO-SIGNED.

It’s World Autism Awareness Day.

Neat.

I have something to say about this, but I’ve got a guest post scheduled elsewhere that deals with some of my thoughts on the subject. I’ll link to that when it’s up, so for now, I’ll stick to the following:

If you want to be supportive of people with autism and express that on your blog today – or ever – please, please, please do not invoke the name of Autism Speaks. This charity is vile, disrespectful, actively hurtful and in no way speaks for people with autism like its name implies. You can find out more on Google, but suffice to say: go with a different source if you want to quote statistics, link to a different page if you want to explain something, and recommend a different charity if that’s your thing. Here’s a page to start you off with.

And also, read blog posts by actual autistic people on the subject, and all that jazz. Awareness is a good thing and I’m pleased to see so many people posting on this matter, but the best perspective is an inside perspective. Please don’t shut out the very people we’re/you’re trying to help.

---

In similarly Awareness-y news: April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I don’t feel like it’s my place to go into further detail, so I’d just like to suggest donating to your local rape crisis center and keeping an eye on The Hathor Legacy, an awesome feminist blog that consistently offers solid content and interesting links. They’ll no doubt have some good posts up over the course of the month.

Plus:

Back to your regularly scheduled non-aware blogging tomorrow.

Jim Hines’s post on Strong Female Characters™, as well as the article that spurred on that post, got me thinking today. (Hey, I was at work for a change. Did you expect me to actually do work?) I don’t think I have any particularly fascinating insights, but this is one thing that did come to mind: flaws either make or break female characters, whereas they merely inform male characters.

Male characters have flaws that are an aspect of their character. These may outshadow or be outshadowed by more positive aspects, but in the end, they’re likely to be well-rounded characters.

When it comes to female characters, the flaws are more likely to play into stereotypes, be they positive or negative. But the real difference, to me, is that they tend to define the character. If a woman is greedy, she’ll be portrayed as either a horrid shrew or as an otherwise lovable character who just has a bit of a quirk. (And, often, this will be their only quirk.)  She can’t just be flawed, like an actual, real-life person. It either needs to dehumanise/villainise her, or make her somehow more appealing to the male character and/or audience. Female characters are defined by how she’ll be perceived, rather than the logical evolution of her as a character.

In practice, in fictional relationships, it will come down to this:
* The male character will be loved by the female character despite his flaws. She may criticise these flaws (because, you know, women with standards are so unreasonable), but they will rarely stop her from forming a relationship with/sleeping with the male lead. He’s just that irresistible.
* The female character will be loved by the male character, partially because of her flaws. If she’s neurotic, it makes her cute and quirky. If she’s arrogant, she’s that much more of a catch. If she’s violent, it makes her hotter. The male lead will rarely criticise her flaws, because – and this is what it comes down to – they’re rarely perceived as flaws. Just character quirks that do not actually detract from her overall attractiveness. However, even though he doesn’t criticise her flaws, they’ll often fade or disappear entirely the more established the relationship becomes.

So that’s what I’d like to see changed: I’d like to see female characters dump male characters – or even reject them from the get-go – because, hey, some men are just Not Relationship Material, no matter their hotness. I’d like to see male characters agree that they’re flawed and make an effort to change it, instead of just being accepted no matter what. Vice versa, I’d like to see male characters criticise female characters without being condescending, but accepting – and more importantly, acknowledging – her flaws whether or not she changes. I want to see male characters drawn to female characters not because of cutesy flaws-which-are-therefore-not-flaws, but because of impressive strengths, which, preferably, do not involve her cup size.

It’s okay to say, “Yeah, sometimes she’s really annoying, but she’s an amazing woman and I love her for her amazing analytical thinking skills/the way she put her life on the line for me/how she never backs down from a challenge.” It’s okay to say, “Sorry, you’re a violent lunatic/boring as hell, I’m staying single for now.”

(And for the record, obviously I’m not saying this should be the case all the time. That would just tip the problem the other way. It needs to be balanced out – and it’s already starting to happen! See: Star Trek and the fabulous way the Kirk/Uhura not-a-relationship is treated.) 

Where’s the fun in giving your characters flaws if other characters won’t acknowledge them and react in a realistic fashion?

It’s entirely possible I’m missing something obvious here. Disagreement is welcome *g*

ETA 04/20/2010: When reading this post, please take into account the date it was posted. Recent actions of Amanda Palmer’s have left me, er, somewhat less enamored of her, so not all of these statements reflect my current opinions.

---

We interrupt your regularly scheduled yapping about writing to bitch in the name of feminism.

Amanda Palmer, solo artist as well as the voice of the currently-on-hiatus Dresden Dolls, is a solid female role model, IMO. I love her as a person, I love her music, and she was fan-fucking-tabulous on stage when I saw her a month ago. On top of everything else, she’s gorgeous.

But whether you love her or hate her, don’t know her or don’t give a damn: THIS is outrageous.

Apparently, the visible body of a perfectly healthy woman is “uncommercial”.

Completely ignoring the obvious bullshit of someone like Amanda Palmer being overweight, what on earth does an artist’s weight even matter?

Though I wish it weren’t necessary, I can understand, from a commercial standpoint, why they might want to keep the music videos of their artists visually appealing to the mainstream. I hate it, but that’s business. Refusing to promote their artists when they object this kind of treatment, though — as they have the right to — that’s crossing a line, for me. That’s not okay.

That’s especially not okay if you see how they treat their male artists, in comparison.

So here’s to Amanda Palmer for standing up for herself and telling her record label to go do anatomically improbable and uncomfortable things to themselves. Here’s to the justified outrage from her fans and feminists alike. Here’s to beautiful people of all weights embracing their appearance, as they rightly should.